ruyi_human_move

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool simulates human-like movement and supports bezier/windmouse algorithms, but it does not disclose mechanics such as whether events are injected at OS level, whether target needs to be visible, or what happens on failure. This is useful but incomplete behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target. Every sentence adds useful information: purpose, supported algorithms, and the anti-detection context. No unnecessary words or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return behavior and side effects, but it does not mention what the tool returns, whether it blocks, or prerequisites. For a relatively simple action it is adequate at a high level, but leaves operational details implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with target, style, and algorithm described in the schema. The description reinforces the target and names the algorithm values (bezier, windmouse) but adds no meaningful detail about the 'style' enum values or 'pageIdx' parameter. It provides slight added context but largely duplicates schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: '模拟人类鼠标移动到目标元素' (simulate human mouse move to target element). It is distinct from sibling tools like ruyi_human_click, ruyi_human_drag, and ruyi_human_scroll by focusing purely on movement. Mentioning bezier/windmouse algorithms and anti-detection scenarios further sharpens the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly identifies the use case: '需要反检测场景下的鼠标操作' (mouse operations in anti-detection scenarios) and contrasts with js-reverse-mcp's lack of this capability. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it among the ruyi_human_* siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.